What exactly is the mind and where is it located ?

[goldisheavy]

Just because you want to use less sophisticated definitions doesn't mean others should. If you have limited vocabary you will be limited in both understanding and expression.

 

You are confused. My language is not less sophisticated at all. I can express everything with subtlety and nuance using the English language.

 

On the contrary, importing big words from the Indian language without first appreciating what the English language can do on its own is pure buffoonery.

[TaoMaster]

Hi,

 

Interesting query... It can be answered in many ways, and all of them are right.

 

To add yet another perspective, the mind is a function of the subtle body which permeates the physical body and extends beyond it. More precisely, there are actually several subtle bodies, or you can say it has several layers: mental, emotional, etc., but let's keep things sweet and simple for the time being. The subtle body interacts with the physical body, thus the mind will be influenced in its functioning by the given physical conditions (such as the intake of a Long Island Ice Tea ).

 

It's important to note that the mind is not connected only with the brain, however, but with the physical body in toto. Emotions and thoughts often have their origin and can be stored in parts of the body far away from the head.

 

Michael

thx Man !! sounds resonable

[silent thunder]

You are confused. My language is not less sophisticated at all. I can express everything with subtlety and nuance using the English language.

 

On the contrary, importing big words from the Indian language without first appreciating what the English language can do on its own is pure buffoonery.

well, at least you're committed to your amero-centrism...

yikes mate.... lighten up, they're all just thought/symbols.

 

all words fail to convey deep meaning and real experience, hence the daily news.

[Songtsan]

It's in the recognition of that same full absorption as "full absorption without seed."

 

it is said that during a true full absorption that one has no sense of self or recognizer, and that one can only glimpse the taste of the state afterwards...but I have not attained this level, so I am just doing hearsay..

 

have you attained absorption without seed object?

Edited August 16, 2014 by Songtsan

[goldisheavy]

you still have more than one thing, whereas absorption without seed object suggests just one thing.

 

It suggests a distinction. Absorption vs non-absorption. Without seed vs with. It's a choice.

 

To have a recognition at all is involving multiple ideas, including a sense of recognizer and the recognized..

 

Indeed. All conceivable ideas exist in the mind as latent potentialities. This space of potentiality is ineliminable. This is what's known as intrinsic omniscience.

 

Also the idea of absence of the recognizer/recognized distinction exists too, latently, at all times.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[Songtsan]

So what is "the seer" in your view? Give me some examples. If your concepts aren't tied to anything, they're just free-floating words which mean nothing.

 

Seer is the watcher, the one that experiences the perceptions, but in the literature, it is separate from the act of perceiving and the objects that are perceived. Only when seer, seen and the act of seeing become one is there full samadhi. I always considered it the reflexive center, perhaps the thalamus. Pure awareness, uncoupled to its objects or the processes that bring the objects to its attention - it is supposedly acausal, eternally the same and untouchable...I don't know really...I'm at the point where I am letting go of all these concepts - they are past reflections of reality

 

When I talk everything I say connects meaningfully to everything else I say. I don't rely on free-floating words. I can relate everything back to experience as well. So not only are my words meaningfully related to each other, but they also relate meaningfully to my experience as well.

 

Yea, my attitude is quite different from yours. I know what I am talking about.

 

You seem so sure! I hope you are right...not to be facetious, but every time I thought I really knew something, I eventually came to know it even better, so I realized that to be so sure is usually constrictive to evolution..

 

There is a world of difference between someone who reads Buddhist or Indian rhetoric, where a lot of the criticism of "the seer" comes from, and someone who actually contemplates for oneself.

 

I mostly have contemplated for myself, while studying all traditions, I study western thought equally as much as eastern. Mental contemplation can only take one so far. I am well contemplated I assure you. I haven't read many books in recent years, yet my understanding improves rapidly nonetheless. I learn from everyone, absorbing knowledge like a sponge, yet I am limited through these learning methods by the level of understanding of those around me. In order to surpass that level I must find out directly, which I am attempting daily. It is not a race, however. If you pride yourself in 'knowing' more than others, it usually indicates that you don't know, because the ultimate knowing transcends dualistic comparisons, and does not hold on to knowledge as treasure. If you are in this state, you are simply still attached to relative concepts. Self/other dualities.

 

Yes I quote some dogma, but I do it because I am adherent to beliefs. Not in a blind way, but it is what my heart feels.

 

"Those who know say nothing."

 

I just feel that this is true.

 

I've got religion, essentially. I am content with that.

 

I believe in God. It is the bane of mentats who don't have that yet when those who do believe come down to this.

[dwai]

You are confused. My language is not less sophisticated at all. I can express everything with subtlety and nuance using the English language.

 

On the contrary, importing big words from the Indian language without first appreciating what the English language can do on its own is pure buffoonery.

You are making it quite apparent where the "buffoonery" rises from. Also, I am very well acquainted with the English language. It its various inadequacies and lack of logic is very apparent to me.

 

I do have the experience of being fluent in 4 other languages besides English. I'm sorry to inform you that English is by far the most "stupid" of them all.

 

Another problem with your line of thinking is, well, the "native english speakers" didn't really start exploring consciousness until a good 2-3 thousand years after the Indians and Chinese did. So, we do have what one would call a gigantic head start over you "great ones" :-)

 

The smarter ones amongst your ilk (like many members of this forum) tend to realize that and try to assimilate what has been done (concepts like antahkarana and manasa among others) from both Indian and Chinese languages.

[Marblehead]

We seem to be making good progress at moving this thread closer to The Pit.

 

I might be able to change my mind but I cannot change my brain.

[Songtsan]

I do have the experience of being fluent in 4 other languages besides English. I'm sorry to inform you that English is by far the most "stupid" of them all.

 

That's awesome....which ones if I may ask?

[Songtsan]

We seem to be making good progress at moving this thread closer to The Pit.

 

I might be able to change my mind but I cannot change my brain.

 

yes you can. The brain is very plastic. It just changes slower.

 

Every time you re-remember something, you actually incur physical changes to neurons....they are formed again..

[Marblehead]

yes you can. The brain is very plastic. It just changes slower.

 

Every time you re-remember something, you actually incur physical changes to neurons....they are formed again..

Good response. But don't those changes occur on their own as opposed to my making the changes with intent? (This is considering no drug induced changes.)

[Songtsan]

Good response. But don't those changes occur on their own as opposed to my making the changes with intent? (This is considering no drug induced changes.)

They are causually linked...thus, intent affects the changes directly

[Marblehead]

They are causually linked...thus, intent affects the changes directly

I can't argue with that due to lack of knowledge so I have to let it stand without my comment.

 

And you may be right.

[dwai]

That's awesome....which ones if I may ask?

Sanskrit, Hindi, Bengali, Kannada

[Songtsan]

I can't argue with that due to lack of knowledge so I have to let it stand without my comment.

 

And you may be right.

 

...and I may be wrong, but I am thinking of a recent article I read in a scientific journal which described a new experimental drug which can interfere with the reformation of painful memories. Apparently, every time we re-experience a memory, it is in fact recreated at that point, slightly altered from the last time...just google "new drug erase bad memories" or somesuch...very interesting.

 

The act of remembering involves physical changes...mind over matter as they say.

[Songtsan]

Sanskrit, Hindi, Bengali, Kannada

 

wow! I am truly envious.

 

Sanskrit I especially find interesting.

[Marblehead]

Sanskrit, Hindi, Bengali, Kannada

You might as well make that five and add English to the list.

[Marblehead]

...and I may be wrong, but I am thinking of a recent article I read in a scientific journal which described a new experimental drug which can interfere with the reformation of painful memories. Apparently, every time we re-experience a memory, it is in fact recreated at that point, slightly altered from the last time...just google "new drug erase bad memories" or somesuch...very interesting.

 

The act of remembering involves physical changes...mind over matter as they say.

Wait! I said without drugs. I know the brain can be physically altered with drugs. I saw something regarding what you spoke to in a documentary of TV but can't remember any of it.

[Songtsan]

Wait! I said without drugs. I know the brain can be physically altered with drugs. I saw something regarding what you spoke to in a documentary of TV but can't remember any of it.

 

The drug part isn't the point...if you read the articles, you will find that the drug interferes with the memory reformation. What this means is that there is a physiological correlate to the reification process. These egos of ours have a hardwired base. The architecture of the ego is mutable. If I sliced out certain sections of your brain, you would literally become a different person. This is old news. The ego is a direct manifestation of the thisness we call the Sea of Energy (which is matter). The self/seer lies beyond this, yet is trapped for various reasons.

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. Now you've gone metaphysical on me and I don't go there.

 

Yes, they used to use labotomy to alter people's personality. That's a lot faster than using drugs.

 

My ego is my self-awareness. Self-awareness as a result of being conscious of my existence. Mind, including its ego is nothing more than conscious self-awareness. It's all in the physical brain.

[goldisheavy]

Seer is the watcher, the one that experiences the perceptions, but in the literature, it is separate from the act of perceiving and the objects that are perceived. Only when seer, seen and the act of seeing become one is there full samadhi.

 

I was going to ask how this seer is separate. If the seer is separate from the act of seeing, then there should be unique properties of the seer that do not apply to seeing, and vice versa.

 

Can you identify what are the unique properties of the seer and then explain to me how those properties lose their unique distinction from the properties of seeing during samadhi?

 

I always considered it the reflexive center, perhaps the thalamus.

 

I see. So your seer appears to have some concrete parameters. It's not just the brain, but you even managed to localize it inside the brain. I personally deny that kind of seer. So for me your idea of samadhi is not even possible, since I can't merge my thalamus with the act of seeing (as opposed to them being distinct during non-samadhi).

 

Pure awareness, uncoupled to its objects or the processes that bring the objects to its attention - it is supposedly acausal, eternally the same and untouchable...I don't know really...I'm at the point where I am letting go of all these concepts - they are past reflections of reality

 

How can there be awareness without at least one object of cognition? Even the void is a distinct, unique and quite recognizable object of cognition.

 

You seem so sure! I hope you are right...not to be facetious, but every time I thought I really knew something, I eventually came to know it even better, so I realized that to be so sure is usually constrictive to evolution..

 

I am sure. I appreciate your warning. I am cognizant of the risks and I have chosen to embrace all what comes as a result of my unique commitment.

 

I mostly have contemplated for myself, while studying all traditions, I study western thought equally as much as eastern. Mental contemplation can only take one so far. I am well contemplated I assure you. I haven't read many books in recent years, yet my understanding improves rapidly nonetheless. I learn from everyone, absorbing knowledge like a sponge, yet I am limited through these learning methods by the level of understanding of those around me. In order to surpass that level I must find out directly, which I am attempting daily. It is not a race, however. If you pride yourself in 'knowing' more than others, it usually indicates that you don't know, because the ultimate knowing transcends dualistic comparisons, and does not hold on to knowledge as treasure. If you are in this state, you are simply still attached to relative concepts. Self/other dualities.

 

Yes I quote some dogma, but I do it because I am adherent to beliefs. Not in a blind way, but it is what my heart feels.

 

"Those who know say nothing."

 

I just feel that this is true.

 

I've got religion, essentially. I am content with that.

 

I believe in God. It is the bane of mentats who don't have that yet when those who do believe come down to this.

 

I won't tell you how to live. I appreciate your sincere expression.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

You are making it quite apparent where the "buffoonery" rises from. Also, I am very well acquainted with the English language. It its various inadequacies and lack of logic is very apparent to me.

 

I do have the experience of being fluent in 4 other languages besides English. I'm sorry to inform you that English is by far the most "stupid" of them all.

 

OK, can you please give me one example where English is inadequate?

 

Another problem with your line of thinking is, well, the "native english speakers" didn't really start exploring consciousness until a good 2-3 thousand years after the Indians and Chinese did. So, we do have what one would call a gigantic head start over you "great ones" :-)

 

I've been exploring consciousness for aeons, for many, many prior births. So now that I speak English I can convey everything I've learned up till now.

 

And in my next birth I'll speak Flurobian language, and then I'll express everything I've learned in this life in Flurobian.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[Songtsan]

Hehehe. Now you've gone metaphysical on me and I don't go there.

 

Yes, they used to use labotomy to alter people's personality. That's a lot faster than using drugs.

 

My ego is my self-awareness. Self-awareness as a result of being conscious of my existence. Mind, including its ego is nothing more than conscious self-awareness. It's all in the physical brain.

 

'Metaphysical' to you means any suggesting that there is something beyond the matter/energy we can sense? Something beyond the 4 dimensions?

[Songtsan]

I was going to ask how this seer is separate. If the seer is separate from the act of seeing, then there should be unique properties of the seer that do not apply to seeing, and vice versa.

 

Can you identify what are the unique properties of the seer and then explain to me how those properties lose their unique distinction from the properties of seeing during samadhi?

 

I will respond to this later when I have formulated an answer from the place where answers spring (for me).

How can there be awareness without at least one object of cognition? Even the void is a distinct, unique and quite recognizable object of cognition.

 

Here is where I rely on the teachings, which speak of objectless meditation. I haven't experienced it, so cannot comment further than quoting the descriptions of others who have attained it - or so they said. These are extent in various paths. I'm not refreshed with reading about dat stuff to say anything but assumptions..

 

I am sure. I appreciate your warning. I am cognizant of the risks and I have chosen to embrace all what comes as a result of my unique commitment.

 

I was merely wondering if you have ever noted a change in your level of realization...has it stayed the same for a long time? Or has it advanced at all lately?

 

I won't tell you how to live. I appreciate your sincere expression.

 

I don't tell myself how to live either! I just do it hehe.

[Marblehead]

'Metaphysical' to you means any suggesting that there is something beyond the matter/energy we can sense? Something beyond the 4 dimensions?

Pretty much correct. I don't believe in ghosts, bigfoots, or aliens either. (Although I don't deny that there could be such things.)